Rare Fuel & Automobile ... vs Indian Institute Of Petroleum
2002 Latest Caselaw 1896 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 M/s Indian Institute of Petroleum, to revalidate the certificate dated 20.6.2001, issued to the petitioner and to upgrade the same in terms of notification dated 19.11.2001, issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MORTH). A direction is also sought to the respondent State Transport Authority (for short S.T.A.) respondent No. 3 not to stop the endorsement of the buses manufactured on or after 1.4.1996, converted into CNG by the petitioner in order to mitigate the prevailing transport crisis in Delhi, due to want of CNG buses. Petitioner also seeks exemplary damages and costs, on account of harassment and loss caused to the petitioner, to be recovered personally from the officials of the IIP or Indian Institute of Petroleum responsible for the denial of revalidation.

2. The petitioner claims to be a company comprising professionals involved in the research and development of gaseous fuel technology. It claims pioneering research to its credit. It also claims to have imported and borrowed the best of technology available internationally in the alternative fuel application trade. The petitioner in para 2(b) of the petition lists the number of pioneering achievements and innovations in developing CNG prototypes for different classes of vehicles. These include CNG prototypes for the vehicle factory in Jabalpur for their diesel engine 'Shaktiman', developing CNG prototype chassis M/s TELCO for their diesel 697 TATA engine and many others. It is not necessary to note the numerous achievements listed except to mention that petitioner claims pioneering research and development in conversion to CNG engines.

3. The surviving controversy in the present petition is a fairly short one. The petitioner had been issued certificate dated 20.6.2001, Annexure P-14, page 53 of the paper book. The said certificate has been issued as per the norms of Government of India Notification No. GSR 99(E) dated 9.2.2000. Two of the relevant conditions i.e. 3, 5 and 6 are reproduced below:

"3. Type Approval Tests for the Mass Emission Standards under CMVR 115B are conducted for the above Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) driven vehicle model with Retrofitment of CNG system as per Govt. Notification No. GSR 99(E) dated February 9, 2000. As per the above notification, the said model operating on CNG meet the Type Approval requirements.

5. This certificate is based on the mass emission norms effective from 1st April, 2002 for diesel vehicles and is valid for CNG Conversion of in-use Diesel Vehicles of Engine Capacity Range from 1301 cc and above manufactured up to 31st March, 1996.

6. This certificate is for Retrofitment and shall be valid for Five Years from the date of issue and shall be renewable after every five years."

4. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the communication dated 4.2.2002, which notified the petitioner that the certificate issued to it for TATA 1510 Bus Model-1993 was as per notification GSR No. 99(E). Further, that in view of notification No. GSR 853(E) dated 19.11.2001, issued by the MoRTH, the petitioner was required to get the certificate revalidated. It was further notified that as per the directions of MoRTH contained in letter dated 29.12.2001, all certificates issued as per GSR No. 99(E) dated 9.2.2000, shall cease to be valid six months from the date of commencement of GSR 853(E) dated 19.11.2001, notwithstanding the period specified in the certificate. It may be noted that the validity of the certificate dated 20.6.2001 was five years. Petitioner was also required to get additional tests done from other testing agencies.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the additional tests, which the petitioner is being required to get done, had already been performed as per the norms of GSR 99-E and there was no requirement either under GSR 853(E) for any new test or norms, which the petitioner had to comply with. Petitioner also claims that appendix I to GSR 99E at serial Nos. 3 gives the performance tests that are required to be carried out by the test agency. It is also stated that specification of the tests would be the same as are for OE i.e. originally equipped vehicles. This would mean as per the Bureau of Indian Standard. Thus, it cannot be claimed by respondents that no standard or specification for carrying out the test was prescribed in GSR 99E and, therefore, additional tests as per norms of GSR 853(E) dated 19.11.2001 were required to be carried out.

6. Petitioner had been informed by the respondents vide its letter of 11.4.2002, that three tests were required to be done for revalidation of the certificate. Mass emission test as per MOST/CMVR/TAP-115/116, Constant speed fuel consumption test as per 11921 according to GSR 853(E) and cooling performance as per ISI 4557 according to GSR 853.

7. The case of the petitioner is that when the certificate was issued to it on 20.6.2001, all these tests had been carried out. Reference is invited by the petitioner to the test report of the Indian Institute of Petroleum. Reference is invited to the Type Approval report filed with the compilation. The report in para 4 describes the tests carried out.

8. During the hearing of the petition Mr. V.K. Rao, who appeared for respondent No. 2 claimed that the petitioner had offered for inspection a vehicle manufactured in 1993. As such the norms prevalent up to 1996 would apply for the purpose of testing. The other manufacturers had separately offered vehicles manufactured in 1996 and later to which the later norms would apply. Mr. Rao claims this was the basic cause for requirement specified for the petitioner for additional tests to make it compatible with the subsequently applicable norms, in case vehicles manufactured in later years were to be taken. During the course of hearing, the respondents were also required to show how the requirement and norms to which the petitioner's vehicle was subjected were different from those to which the petitioner is now required to undergo for revalidation of the certificates. The petitioner had placed on record documents and a compilation. A direction was, therefore, issued to the respondents to have the documents examined by their experts and then report to the Court.

9. Learned Standing counsel for the Union of India Mr. Sanjeev Jain very fairly submitted that out of the various tests to which the petitioner's vehicle was subjected to, the question whether the test met the norms and normative standards, as prescribed by GSR 853(E) of 9.2.2000, arises in respect of three tests, namely, Mass Emission test, Constant Speed Fuel Consumption test and Cooling Performance test. The vehicle, as noted earlier, which was subjected to the tests manufactured in 1993 but the tests were carried out in April, 2001, on the vehicle retrofitted with CNG. The mass emission test was to be conducted in accordance with MOST/CVMR/TAP-115/116 read with notification issued by Government of India. The GSR 99(E) of 9.2.2000 describes only the test and did not describe the detailed specifications. The specifications and standards were thus prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standard. Based on the said standards and norms, it is not disputed that the vehicle met the requisite standard. The range of permissible F factor was between 0.98 to 1.02. The vehicle showed 1.025. hence it would be within the acceptable deviation limit. The second test, namely, constant special fuel consumption had been conducted as per Indian standard IS11921/1986. The said test could be carried out either by chassis dynometer or by testing the vehicle on the actual test track. It was permissible for the authority to follow either of the two methods. The vehicle was found qualified in this test.

10. As regards the Cooling Performance test, the petitioner had desired the test to be performed as per applicable norms. The vehicle was tested in April, 2001, when GSR 99(E) of 9.2.2000, was applicable. The said notification did not prescribe any specifications or standard. Hence the standards and specifications given in the Bureau of Indian Standard were IS 14557 of 1998 would apply. This test had been carried out on the applying IS 14557 of 1998. Reference may be made to the detailed report of IS 14557 of 1998. The test was carried out on the actual track i.e. Roorkie Hardwar road. The vehicle was required to be driven in the lowest gear and thereafter given full throttle to achieve acceleration. The vehicle was also required to be loaded to test the engine maximum power capacity. Although the test report does not show that the requisite load had been put on the engine of the vehicle. Counsel for the respondents confirmed that on rechecking the position, it is now confirmed that heavy stones were added to the vehicle to give the requisite load. The vehicle had been driven at various speed, which shows that throttle variation was also tested with gear change and the temperature maintained itself and had met the requisite standard.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the foregoing, submits that there was no justification whatsoever to require the petitioner to carry out the three tests which had already been done. A perusal of Annexure A of IS 14557:1998 shows that Indian Institute of Petroleum Dehradun, respondent No. 2 was one of the participants in the committee, which formulated the standard to assess the cooling performance and the mode and manner of performance of automobile vehicles other than two or three wheeler would be tested, was prescribed. It was applicable to all road vehicles fitted with water cooling engines. IIP had, therefore, conducted the test in accordance with standard laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standard.

12. The petitioner alleges mala fides as well as discriminatory approach on behalf of the respondents by alleging that M/s Nugas Technologies India (P) Ltd. and M/s. D.D. Industries Ltd., two other manufacturers were issued certificates while petitioner was denied equivalent certificate. It is not necessary to go into this aspect. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the petitioner meets the prescribed test and standards even as per GSR 823E.

13. From the foregoing narration of facts and the position as admitted by learned counsel for the respondents in the proceedings before the Court, there is no doubt that when the certificate was issued to it on 20.6.2001 all the tests had been carried out was correct. Reference may be made to paragraph 4 of the test report appearing at page 50 of the compilation provided by the petitioner. Reference may also be suitably made to the letter dated 19.1.2002 written by the Union (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) to respondent No. 2 wherein it is stated that if tests had been carried out while giving certificate under old dispensation, repeat test need not to be carried out.

In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to relief. Respondents are directed to revalidate the certificate dated 20.6.2001, issued to petitioner and to upgrade the same in terms of the notification dated 19.11.2001, issued by MORTH.

While parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that the responsibility of specialized agencies and technical institute, is far greater in such matters. The petitioner in this can has been put through avoidable hardship on account of non-appreciation of its contentions that the tests already carried out under GSR 99E, were complying with the norms and normative standards as set out by the Bureau of Indian Standards and the later notification, namely GSR 853E. The latter had prescribed similar tests and there was no occasion to require the petitioner to have these tests repeatedly done on the assumption that the normative standards and norms were different. The petitioner had been put to harassment and avoidable loss. This is also evident from the fact that pursuant to the court direction and consideration of the compilation as given by the petitioner, the respondent themselves have admitted this position. In these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner.